Appeal No. 2002-1940
Application 08/932,649
Likewise, there appears to be no dispute between the
examiner and the appellants regarding the initially recited
features of a monitoring camera capable of changing shooting
direction, an image processor for analyzing and a video device
controller for controlling the video devices as recited early
in independent claim 1 on appeal. It appears to us that the
examiner has well-correlated the nature of the subject matter in
these portions of the claim at pages 2 and 3 of the Office action
in the statement of the rejection on February 2, 2001.
Independent claim 1 consistently utilizes the terminology
"characteristic quantities" to describe only the characteristic
quantities of an object and not any characteristic quantities of
any topographic information, for example. The means for teaching
feature is focused upon teaching the image processor
characteristic quantities of the object. This clearly
corresponds to the ability of Aviv's system to have stored within
its system known characteristic movements of individuals as set
forth in the Abstract which serves as the basis of the comparison
operation for dynamically derived information with respect to
"signature" video signals stored in memory 16 as in Figure 1 of
Aviv. This is discussed principally at columns 7 and 8 of this
reference.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007